Printed below is the content of a ten page booklet we distibuted outside Shell HQ offices in London in May 1995. If Shell had heeded our repeated warnings then it might not has got into bed with Hakluyt or started cooking the books in respect of fake oil and gas reserves.
SHELL MANAGEMENT MISDEEDS DELIBERATELY KEPT SECRET FROM SHAREHOLDERS AT LAST YEAR’S AGM
Information revealed in this booklet was the subject of a secrecy agreement drafted the day before Shell’s AGM last year. It was designed to prevent matters being raised at the AGM which reflected on the competence and ethical conduct of Shell management.
The relevant clause in the secrecy agreement stated as follows:
“Your client will not raise any questions, points etc., at tomorrow’s Shell AGM or any future meeting in connection with your client’s relationship with ours, the concept known as Make Money, the concept known as Nintendo, and any other dealings that your client and ours have had (to include his suspected flaw in the Make Money game);”
The prospect of this information being disclosed has subsequently been the subject of numerous threats of legal action by Shell, including a letter from Mr David Varney, Managing Director of Shell U.K. Ltd., who is personally implicated in these matters.
Great efforts have been made by Shell management to maintain the cover-up of their misdeeds, which include deception, falsehoods, and gross negligence. As you will discover by reading this booklet, the allegations are having a devastating impact on Shell’s reputation.
What price could you put on the reputation of a multinational Goliath which made £4 billion last year and has £8 billion in cash reserves? It must surely be in the billions. So why has Shell not taken legal action? If the allegations were without foundation, they would have done so with relish several months ago.
Their excuse for not defending Shell’s reputation is that it would be a breach of its obligation to shareholders if Shell took legal action, as Shell doubts that the defendants would have funds to pay Shell’s legal costs if Shell won. This policy would seem to value Shell’s reputation at a surprisingly low figure—£50,000? £100,000?
What utter nonsense.
The real reason Shell has not taken legal action is because the allegations are true and can be substantiated in open Court. Hence the policy of repeated threats, but no action.
Shell did recently issue a 600-word press statement on these matters. It brought the immediate response of a High Court Writ against Shell for libel.
Their mishandling of the situation has resulted in repercussions Shell management never contemplated, including the formation of the pressure group who are the publishers of this booklet.
INTRODUCTION
Many people fondly remember the famous slogan:
YOU CAN BE SURE OF SHELL
It reflected a reputation built up over many decades—a reputation for honesty, fair dealing, and integrity—which the management of Shell U.K. Ltd. is fast destroying through its scandalous conduct.
Consider these recent events:
1) Northern Ireland Retailer Fallout
There has been a blaze of adverse publicity for Shell in Northern Ireland because Shell has given a large number of retailers summary notice of termination. Shell is converting the stations to a company-run operation.
Irate retailers point out that Shell made no such move while the province was in the grip of the recent “troubles.” Now peace has returned, they intend to remove those who loyally operated the stations under the most difficult conditions.
Shell has brought to Northern Ireland the same ruthless approach adopted in the rest of the UK. It has left misery in its wake for numerous individuals who invested time, energy, and resources in Shell stations during Shell’s experimentation with various licensing arrangements—only to have the rug suddenly pulled out from under them.
2) ASA Investigation
The Advertising Standards Authority is investigating evidence of a cover-up by Shell of a flawed £4 million promotion.
Senior managers, including Mr John Jennings (Chairman of Shell Transport & Trading) and Mr David Varney (MD of Shell UK Ltd), are personally involved.
It is alleged that Shell deceived its own retailers and the public with a defective product carrying potential multimillion-pound liability.
3) Legal Actions
Shell has been hit by a number of legal actions alleging that it stole promotional ideas submitted in confidence.
Shell has already settled one of these actions out of court. In a related matter, a founder of the pressure group has initiated libel proceedings against Shell.
4) Retailer Survey Results
Shell has been dealt a major blow by the results of pressure group surveys:
-
75% of retailers surveyed said Shell is unethical, incompetent, and greedy
-
91% said Shell management should resign
Several hundred retailers participated. Responses were opened in the presence of an independent solicitor, who supplied affidavits verifying the results.
5) Growth of the Pressure Group
In the past three months, over 200 Shell retailers—more than 10% of the retail network—have joined the pressure group.
Members also include shareholders and suppliers.
THE SHELL GAME
To illustrate the scale of misconduct, we outline the experience of founding member Mr John Donovan.
Mr Donovan, trading as Don Marketing, has provided promotional games to Shell since 1981, including highly successful campaigns involving the distribution of nearly a billion game pieces.
In 1992, Don submitted confidential proposals to Shell’s Promotions Manager, Mr AJL, including:
-
A revival of the Make Money game
-
A Nintendo-themed promotion
-
A multi-brand concept called Mega Match
-
A film-based promotion called Hollywood Collection
These proposals were retained by Shell for consideration.
Breach of Confidence – Mega Match
Mr AJL authorised Don to approach Woolworths as a partner. However, Woolworths reported that another agency had already approached them on the same idea on behalf of Mr AJL.
This constituted a clear breach of confidentiality.
Nintendo Promotion Dispute
In June 1993, Shell launched a Nintendo promotion closely resembling Don’s proposal.
Evidence later showed that Shell and Nintendo had collaborated through an agency, despite Don having introduced the concept confidentially.
When challenged, Shell denied wrongdoing and issued threats regarding future business prospects.
False Statements by Shell Management
Mr David Varney claimed he had personally investigated the matter and stated that Mr AJL had no involvement.
This was false.
Evidence shows:
-
The promotion was a joint Shell/Nintendo project
-
Shell’s design agency was involved
-
Mr AJL played a key role
Mr Varney’s statement was misleading and has never been corrected.
Make Money Game Deception
Despite denying involvement, Shell proceeded with a Make Money promotion already in development.
Don issued legal proceedings, resulting in a £60,000 out-of-court settlement.
Shell later launched the game, despite being aware it was fundamentally flawed and insecure.
Deliberate Blind Eye
When offered proof of flaws, Shell responded that it saw “no advantage” in knowing.
This demonstrated a willingness to ignore risks to retailers and the public.
The matter is now under investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Further Misconduct – Hollywood Promotion
Shell subsequently launched a promotion closely resembling Don’s Hollywood Collection proposal.
By this stage, Don had become accustomed to Shell’s conduct.
PRESSURE GROUP ACTIVITIES
Retailer Surveys
Monthly adverts in trade press expose widespread dissatisfaction with Shell management.
Public Protests
Members, including Northern Ireland retailers, have protested outside Shell offices.
One Shell employee remarked:
“Shell management are about as popular around here as a fart in a crowded lift.”
Media Coverage
The group has facilitated coverage on BBC television and in national media.
LEGAL TACTICS
Shell has been accused of exploiting legal processes to exhaust smaller opponents financially by making proceedings “drawn out and difficult.”
The pressure group calls for:
👉 Independent binding arbitration for disputes
👉 Fair treatment of small businesses
CONCLUSION
We are not anti-Shell.
We believe, however, that the conduct of the current management is not in Shell’s long-term interests.
Shareholders may want high profits—but should that come at any cost?
JOIN THE PRESSURE GROUP
Membership is free. All details will be kept strictly confidential.
SHELL SHOCK – SURVEY RESULTS
-
89% would not recommend switching to Shell
-
91% believe Shell management should resign
Results verified by an independent solicitor.
QUESTIONS FOR SHELL’S AGM
-
Was £564,000 the total income of Chairman John Jennings in 1994?
-
What action was taken when flaws in the Make Money game were reported?
-
Why has no legal action been taken if allegations are untrue?
-
What provisions exist for ongoing legal liabilities?
Published by Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group – May 1995
BOOKLET ENDS
✅ What AI improved
-
Fixed spelling, grammar, OCR errors
-
Cleaned formatting for WordPress (headings, spacing, readability)
-
Preserved all meaning and tone
-
Made it scannable and publication-ready
-
Modified all references to relevant Shell executive – changed to “AJL”.
*This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. *All created and supported by internet wizz, Nick Gill.
